GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc:rfc944

Network Working Group J. Reynolds Request for Comments: 944 J. Postel

                                                                   ISI

Obsoletes: RFCs 924, 901, 880, 840 April 1985

                  OFFICIAL ARPA-INTERNET PROTOCOLS

STATUS OF THIS MEMO

 This memo is an official status report on the protocols used in the
 ARPA-Internet community.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

INTRODUCTION

 This RFC identifies the documents specifying the official protocols
 used in the Internet.  Comments indicate any revisions or changes
 planned.
 To first order, the official protocols are those in the "Internet
 Protocol Transition Workbook" (IPTW) dated March 1982.  There are
 several protocols in use that are not in the IPTW.  A few of the
 protocols in the IPTW have been revised.  Notably, the mail protocols
 have been revised and issued as a volume titled "Internet Mail
 Protocols" dated November 1982.  Telnet and the most useful Telnet
 options have been revised and issued as a volume titled "Internet
 Telnet Protocol and Options" (ITP) dated June 1983.  Some protocols
 have not been revised for many years, these are found in the old
 "ARPANET Protocol Handbook" (APH) dated January 1978.  There is also
 a volume of protocol related information called the "Internet
 Protocol Implementers Guide" (IPIG) dated August 1982.
 This document is organized as a sketchy outline.  The entries are
 protocols (e.g., Transmission Control Protocol).  In each entry there
 are notes on status, specification, comments, other references,
 dependencies, and contact.
    The STATUS is one of: required, recommended, elective, or
    experimental.
    The SPECIFICATION identifies the protocol defining documents.
    The COMMENTS describe any differences from the specification or
    problems with the protocol.
    The OTHER REFERENCES identify documents that comment on or expand
    on the protocol.
    The DEPENDENCIES indicate what other protocols are called upon by
    this protocol.

Reynolds & Postel [Page 1]

Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 944

    The CONTACT indicates a person who can answer questions about the
    protocol.
    In particular, the status may be:
       required
  1. all hosts must implement the required protocol,
       recommended
  1. all hosts are encouraged to implement the recommended

protocol,

       elective
  1. hosts may implement or not the elective protocol,
       experimental
  1. hosts should not implement the experimental protocol

unless they are participating in the experiment and have

          coordinated their use of this protocol with the contact
          person, and
       none
  1. this is not a protocol.
       For further information about protocols in general, please
       contact:
          Joyce Reynolds
          USC - Information Sciences Institute
          4676 Admiralty Way
          Marina del Rey, California  90292-6695
          Phone: (213) 822-1511
          ARPA mail: JKREYNOLDS@USC-ISIF.ARPA

Reynolds & Postel [Page 2]

Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 944

OVERVIEW

 Catenet Model  ------------------------------------------------------
    STATUS:  None
    SPECIFICATION:  IEN 48 (in IPTW)
    COMMENTS:
       Gives an overview of the organization and principles of the
       Internet.
       Could be revised and expanded.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
       RFC 871 - A Perspective on the ARPANET Reference Model
       Padlipsky, M.A., "The Elements of Networking Style and other
       Essays and Animadversions on the Art of Intercomputer
       Networking", Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, 1985.
       Leiner, Barry, Robert Cole, Jon Postel and Dave Mills, "The
       DARPA Protocol Suite", IEEE INFOCOM 85, Washington, D.C.,
       March 1985.  Also in IEEE Communications Magazine, March 1985.
    DEPENDENCIES:
    CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF.ARPA

Reynolds & Postel [Page 3]

Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 944

NETWORK LEVEL

 Internet Protocol  --------------------------------------------- (IP)
    STATUS:  Required
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 791 (in IPTW)
    COMMENTS:
       This is the universal protocol of the Internet.  This datagram
       protocol provides the universal addressing of hosts in the
       Internet.
       A few minor problems have been noted in this document.
       The most serious is a bit of confusion in the route options.
       The route options have a pointer that indicates which octet of
       the route is the next to be used.  The confusion is between the
       phrases "the pointer is relative to this option" and "the
       smallest legal value for the pointer is 4".  If you are
       confused, forget about the relative part, the pointer begins
       at 4.
       Another important point is the alternate reassembly procedure
       suggested in RFC 815.
       Some changes are in the works for the security option.
       Note that ICMP is defined to be an integral part of IP.  You
       have not completed an implementation of IP if it does not
       include ICMP.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
       RFC 815 (in IPIG) - IP Datagram Reassembly Algorithms
       RFC 814 (in IPIG) - Names, Addresses, Ports, and Routes
       RFC 816 (in IPIG) - Fault Isolation and Recovery
       RFC 817 (in IPIG) - Modularity and Efficiency in Protocol
       Implementation
       MIL-STD-1777 - Military Standard Internet Protocol
    DEPENDENCIES:
    CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF.ARPA

Reynolds & Postel [Page 4]

Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 944

 Internet Control Message Protocol  --------------------------- (ICMP)
    STATUS:  Required
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 792 (in IPTW)
    COMMENTS:
       The control messages and error reports that go with the
       Internet Protocol.
       A few minor errors in the document have been noted.
       Suggestions have been made for additional types of redirect
       message and additional destination unreachable messages.
       A proposal for two additional ICMP message types is made in
       RFC 917 "Internet Subnets", Address Format Request (A1=17), and
       Address Format Reply (A2=18).  The details of these ICMP types
       are subject to change.  Use of these ICMP types is
       experimental.
       Note that ICMP is defined to be an integral part of IP.  You
       have not completed an implementation of IP if it does not
       include ICMP.
    OTHER REFERENCES:  RFC 917
    DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol
    CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF.ARPA

Reynolds & Postel [Page 5]

Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 944

HOST LEVEL

 User Datagram Protocol  --------------------------------------- (UDP)
    STATUS:  Recommended
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 768 (in IPTW)
    COMMENTS:
       Provides a datagram service to applications.  Adds port
       addressing to the IP services.
       The only change noted for the UDP specification is a minor
       clarification that if in computing the checksum a padding octet
       is used for the computation it is not transmitted or counted in
       the length.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol
    CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF.ARPA
 Transmission Control Protocol  -------------------------------- (TCP)
    STATUS:  Recommended
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 793 (in IPTW)
    COMMENTS:
       Provides reliable end-to-end data stream service.
       Many comments and corrections have been received for the TCP
       specification document.  These are primarily document bugs
       rather than protocol bugs.
       Event Processing Section:  There are many minor corrections and
       clarifications needed in this section.
       Push:  There are still some phrases in the document that give a
       "record mark" flavor to the push.  These should be further
       clarified.  The push is not a record mark.
       Urgent:  Page 17 is wrong.  The urgent pointer points to the
       last octet of urgent data (not to the first octet of non-ungent
       data).

Reynolds & Postel [Page 6]

Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 944

       Listening Servers:  Several comments have been received on
       difficulties with contacting listening servers.  There should
       be some discussion of implementation issues for servers, and
       some notes on alternative models of system and process
       organization for servers.
       Maximum Segment Size:  The maximum segment size option should
       be generalized and clarified.  It can be used to either
       increase or decrease the maximum segment size from the default.
       The TCP Maximum Segment Size is the IP Maximum Datagram Size
       minus forty.  The default IP Maximum Datagram Size if 576.  The
       default TCP Maximum Segment Size is 536.  For further
       discussion, see RFC 879.
       Idle Connections:  There have been questions about
       automatically closing idle connections.  Idle connections are
       ok, and should not be closed.  There are several cases where
       idle connections arise, for example, in Telnet when a user is
       thinking for a long time following a message from the server
       computer before his next input.  There is no TCP "probe"
       mechanism, and none is needed.
       Queued Receive Data on Closing:  There are several points where
       it is not clear from the description what to do about data
       received by the TCP but not yet passed to the user,
       particularly when the connection is being closed.  In general,
       the data is to be kept to give to the user if he does a RECV
       call.
       Out of Order Segments:  The description says that segments that
       arrive out of order, that is, are not exactly the next segment
       to be processed, may be kept on hand.  It should also point out
       that there is a very large performance penalty for not doing
       so.
       User Time Out:  This is the time out started on an open or send
       call.  If this user time out occurs the user should be
       notified, but the connection should not be closed or the TCB
       deleted.  The user should explicitly ABORT the connection if he
       wants to give up.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
       RFC 813 (in IPIG) - Window and Acknowledgement Strategy in TCP
       RFC 814 (in IPIG) - Names, Addresses, Ports, and Routes
       RFC 816 (in IPIG) - Fault Isolation and Recovery

Reynolds & Postel [Page 7]

Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 944

       RFC 817 (in IPIG) - Modularity and Efficiency in Protocol
       Implementation
       RFC 879 - TCP Maximum Segment Size
       RFC 889 - Internet Delay Experiments
       RFC 896 - TCP/IP Congestion Control
       MIL-STD-1778 - Military Standard Transmission Control Protocol
    DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol
    CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF.ARPA
 Host Monitoring Protocol  ------------------------------------- (HMP)
    STATUS:  Elective
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 869
    COMMENTS:
       This is a good tool for debugging protocol implementations in
       remotely located computers.
       This protocol is used to monitor Internet gateways and the
       TACs.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol
    CONTACT: Hinden@BBN-UNIX.ARPA
 Cross Net Debugger  ------------------------------------------ (XNET)
    STATUS:  Elective
    SPECIFICATION:  IEN 158
    COMMENTS:
       A debugging protocol, allows debugger like access to remote
       systems.
       This specification should be updated and reissued as an RFC.
    OTHER REFERENCES:  RFC 643

Reynolds & Postel [Page 8]

Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 944

    DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol
    CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF.ARPA
 "Stub" Exterior Gateway Protocol  ----------------------------- (EGP)
    STATUS:  Recommended for Gateways
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 888, RFC 904
    COMMENTS:
       The protocol used between gateways of different administrations
       to exchange routing information.
       Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this
       protocol with the contact.
    OTHER REFERENCES:  RFC 827, RFC 890
    DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol
    CONTACT: Mills@USC-ISID.ARPA
 Gateway Gateway Protocol  ------------------------------------- (GGP)
    STATUS:  Experimental
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 823
    COMMENTS:
       The gateway protocol now used in the core gateways.
       Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this
       protocol with the contact.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol
    CONTACT: Brescia@BBN-UNIX.ARPA

Reynolds & Postel [Page 9]

Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 944

 Multiplexing Protocol  ---------------------------------------- (MUX)
    STATUS:  Experimental
    SPECIFICATION:  IEN 90
    COMMENTS:
       Defines a capability to combine several segments from different
       higher level protocols in one IP datagram.
       No current experiment in progress.  There is some question as
       to the extent to which the sharing this protocol envisions can
       actually take place.  Also, there are some issues about the
       information captured in the multiplexing header being (a)
       insufficient, or (b) over specific.
       Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this
       protocol with the contact.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol
    CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF.ARPA
 Stream Protocol  ----------------------------------------------- (ST)
    STATUS:  Experimental
    SPECIFICATION:  IEN 119
    COMMENTS:
       A gateway resource allocation protocol designed for use in
       multihost real time applications.
       The implementation of this protocol has evolved and may no
       longer be consistent with this specification.  The document
       should be updated and issued as an RFC.
       Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this
       protocol with the contact.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol
    CONTACT: jwf@LL-EN.ARPA

Reynolds & Postel [Page 10]

Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 944

 Network Voice Protocol  ------------------------------------ (NVP-II)
    STATUS:  Experimental
    SPECIFICATION:  ISI Internal Memo
    COMMENTS:
       Defines the procedures for real time voice conferencing.
       The specification is an ISI Internal Memo which should be
       updated and issued as an RFC.
       Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this
       protocol with the contact.
    OTHER REFERENCES:  RFC 741
    DEPENDENCIES:  Internet Protocol, Stream Protocol
    CONTACT:  Casner@USC-ISIB.ARPA
 Reliable Data Protocol  --------------------------------------- (RDP)
    STATUS:  Experimental
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 908
    COMMENTS:
       This protocol is designed to efficiently support the bulk
       transfer of data for such host monitoring and control
       applications as loading/dumping and remote debugging.  The
       protocol is intended to be simple to implement but still be
       efficient in environments where there may be long transmission
       delays and loss or non-sequential delivery of message segments.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    DEPENDENCIES:  Internet Protocol
    CONTACT:  CWelles@BBN-UNIX.ARPA

Reynolds & Postel [Page 11]

Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 944

 Internet Reliable Transaction Protocol  ---------------------- (IRTP)
    STATUS:  Experimental
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 938
    COMMENTS:
       This protocol is a transport level host to host protocol
       designed for an internet environment.  While the issues
       discussed may not be directly relevant to the research problems
       of the DARPA community, they may be interesting to a number of
       researchers and implementors.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    DEPENDENCIES:  Internet Protocol
    CONTACT:  Trudy@ACC.ARPA

Reynolds & Postel [Page 12]

Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 944

APPLICATION LEVEL

 Telnet Protocol  ------------------------------------------- (TELNET)
    STATUS:  Recommended
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 854 (in "Internet Telnet Protocol and
    Options")
    COMMENTS:
       The protocol for remote terminal access.
       This has been revised since the IPTW.  RFC 764 in IPTW is now
       obsolete.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
       MIL-STD-1782 - Telnet Protocol
    DEPENDENCIES:  Transmission Control Protocol
    CONTACT:  Postel@USC-ISIF.ARPA

Reynolds & Postel [Page 13]

Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 944

 Telnet Options  ------------------------------------ (TELNET-OPTIONS)
    STATUS:  Elective
    SPECIFICATION:  General description of options:  RFC 855
    (in "Internet Telnet Protocol and Options")
    Number   Name                                RFC  NIC  ITP APH USE
    ------   ---------------------------------   --- ----- --- --- ---
       0     Binary Transmission                 856 ----- yes obs yes
       1     Echo                                857 ----- yes obs yes
       2     Reconnection                        ... 15391  no yes  no
       3     Suppress Go Ahead                   858 ----- yes obs yes
       4     Approx Message Size Negotiation     ... 15393  no yes  no
       5     Status                              859 ----- yes obs yes
       6     Timing Mark                         860 ----- yes obs yes
       7     Remote Controlled Trans and Echo    726 39237  no yes  no
       8     Output Line Width                   ... 20196  no yes  no
       9     Output Page Size                    ... 20197  no yes  no
      10     Output Carriage-Return Disposition  652 31155  no yes  no
      11     Output Horizontal Tabstops          653 31156  no yes  no
      12     Output Horizontal Tab Disposition   654 31157  no yes  no
      13     Output Formfeed Disposition         655 31158  no yes  no
      14     Output Vertical Tabstops            656 31159  no yes  no
      15     Output Vertical Tab Disposition     657 31160  no yes  no
      16     Output Linefeed Disposition         658 31161  no yes  no
      17     Extended ASCII                      698 32964  no yes  no
      18     Logout                              727 40025  no yes  no
      19     Byte Macro                          735 42083  no yes  no
      20     Data Entry Terminal                 732 41762  no yes  no
      21     SUPDUP                          734 736 42213  no yes  no
      22     SUPDUP Output                       749 45449  no  no  no
      23     Send Location                       779 -----  no  no  no
      24     Terminal Type                       930 -----  no  no  no
      25     End of Record                       885 -----  no  no  no
      26     TACACS User Identification          927 -----  no  no  no
      27     Output Marking                      933 -----  no  no  no
     255     Extended-Options-List               861 ----- yes obs yes
                                                      (obs = obsolete)
    The ITP column indicates if the specification is included in the
    Internet Telnet Protocol and Options.  The APH column indicates if
    the specification is included in the ARPANET Protocol Handbook.
    The USE column of the table above indicates which options are in
    general use.

Reynolds & Postel [Page 14]

Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 944

    COMMENTS:
       The Binary Transmission, Echo, Suppress Go Ahead, Status,
       Timing Mark, and Extended Options List options have been
       recently updated and reissued.  These are the most frequently
       implemented options.
       The remaining options should be reviewed and the useful ones
       should be revised and reissued.  The others should be
       eliminated.
       The following are recommended:  Binary Transmission, Echo,
       Suppress Go Ahead, Status, Timing Mark, and Extended Options
       List.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    DEPENDENCIES: Telnet
    CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF.ARPA
 File Transfer Protocol  --------------------------------------- (FTP)
    STATUS:  Recommended
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 765 (in IPTW)
    COMMENTS:
       The protocol for moving files between Internet hosts.  Provides
       for access control and negotiation of file parameters.
       There are a number of minor corrections to be made.  A major
       change is the deletion of the mail commands, and a major
       clarification is needed in the discussion of the management of
       the data connection.  Also, a suggestion has been made to
       include some directory manipulation commands (RFC 775).
       Even though the MAIL features are defined in this document,
       they are not to be used.  The SMTP protocol is to be used for
       all mail service in the Internet.
       Data Connection Management:
          a.  Default Data Connection Ports:  All FTP implementations
          must support use of the default data connection ports, and
          only the User-PI may initiate the use of non-default ports.
          b.  Negotiating Non-Default Data Ports:   The User-PI may

Reynolds & Postel [Page 15]

Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 944

          specify a non-default user side data port with the PORT
          command.  The User-PI may request the server side to
          identify a non-default server side data port with the PASV
          command.  Since a connection is defined by the pair of
          addresses, either of these actions is enough to get a
          different data connection, still it is permitted to do both
          commands to use new ports on both ends of the data
          connection.
          c.  Reuse of the Data Connection:  When using the stream
          mode of data transfer the end of the file must be indicated
          by closing the connection.  This causes a problem if
          multiple files are to be transfered in the session, due to
          need for TCP to hold the connection record for a time out
          period to guarantee the reliable communication.  Thus the
          connection can not be reopened at once.
             There are two solutions to this problem.  The first is to
             negotiate a non-default port (as in (b) above).  The
             second is to use another transfer mode.
             A comment on transfer modes.  The stream transfer mode is
             inherently unreliable, since one can not determine if the
             connection closed prematurely or not.  The other transfer
             modes (Block, Compressed) do not close the connection to
             indicate the end of file.  They have enough FTP encoding
             that the data connection can be parsed to determine the
             end of the file.  Thus using these modes one can leave
             the data connection open for multiple file transfers.
             Why this was not a problem with the old NCP FTP:
                The NCP was designed with only the ARPANET in mind.
                The ARPANET provides very reliable service, and the
                NCP counted on it.  If any packet of data from an NCP
                connection were lost or damaged by the network the NCP
                could not recover.  It is a tribute to the ARPANET
                designers that the NCP FTP worked so well.
                The TCP is designed to provide reliable connections
                over many different types of networks and
                interconnections of networks.  TCP must cope with a
                set of networks that can not promise to work as well
                as the ARPANET.  TCP must make its own provisions for
                end-to-end recovery from lost or damaged packets.
                This leads to the need for the connection phase-down
                time-out.  The NCP never had to deal with
                acknowledgements or retransmissions or many other

Reynolds & Postel [Page 16]

Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 944

                things the TCP must do to make connection reliable in
                a more complex world.
       LIST and NLST:
          There is some confusion about the LIST an NLST commands, and
          what is appropriate to return.  Some clarification and
          motivation for these commands should be added to the
          specification.
       Multiple 1xx Replies:
          There is some difference of opinion about the use of
          multiple 1xx responses during command processing.  This
          issue comes up particularly in processing the RETR and STOR
          commands.  The two opinions are summarized below.
          For Exactly One 1xx Response:
             When a RETR or SEND command is started, the server is
             supposed to give an "intermediate reply" of 1xx when it
             is opening the data connection.  Currently, some FTP
             servers give two 1xx messages.  This causes problems for
             single-thread FTP user implementations.  After reading
             the first intermediate reply, they go off to do the
             transfer.  The second 1xx message is not seen until the
             end of the transfer.  The RFC gives a state diagram of
             the form:
  1. ——–>Wait———>

/ \

                        ^      |
                        |      V
                        \      /
                         <-----
             This implies any number of 1xx's (including 0).  There is
             a suspicion that this is just sloppy diagraming, and that
             the intent is clear from other parts of the RFC.
             The FTP specification states that the reason for
             intermediate replies is to allow implementations that
             can't do any better to know when to stop listening to the
             control channel and switch their attention to the data
             channel.  Given this intent, it seems clear that there
             should be exactly one 1xx reply at the start of the
             transfer.
             The FTP specification is ambiguous in this regard.  The

Reynolds & Postel [Page 17]

Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 944

             state diagrams appear to sanction any number of
             responses.  But the charts before them do not.  And from
             the intent, it seems obvious that exactly one is the
             right thing.
             Consider an implementation on a PC.  It is fairly hard to
             do parallel processing there.  It should be possible for
             a PC implementation to stop paying attention to the
             control channel and start reading the file from the data
             channel when he sees the 1xx response.  The only way this
             can work is if there is only one 1xx response.
             Of course, one could make it a requirement that every FTP
             implementation must be based on good enough interrupt
             technology so that it can field extra responses during
             the transfer.  But what would such a constraint buy?
             Just the ability to have both a 125 and a 150 response.
             It doesn't seem worth the price.  You could just as well
             combine the information in those responses into a single
             one.
          For Multiple 1xx Responses:
             The multiple 1xx messages arose because the new TCP
             specification omitted the 050 spontaneous reply code.  A
             solution was to change an 050 informational message to a
             1xx message, creating both a 125 and a 150.
             The state diagrams clearly allow this, and the
             "Command-Reply Sequences" section does not contradict it.
             A multiple 1xx implementation is in accord with the
             formal reply specifications.
             A multiple 1xx implementation works with the TOPS-20
             FTP's and with a number of different UNIX
             implementations, and the LOCUS system.  So, a lot of
             implementors must follow state diagrams in preference to
             prose.
             However, the observation is certainly correct that
             page 34 of the specification suggests that 1xx replies
             can be used by single-thread user implementations to
             switch attention to the data connection.  This would
             allow only a single 1xx message, in contradiction to the
             state diagrams.  It seems a bit strong, however, to call
             the one sentence on page 34 "the intent" of the
             specification, since it is contradicted by the format
             specification of replies.

Reynolds & Postel [Page 18]

Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 944

             A side discussion favoring more status information:
                One view has always assumed a two-thread
                implementation.  In this view, most user
                implementations are deficient because they do not
                allow the user to enter a STATUS command during data
                transfer.  A cynic might say that is because the
                Computer Scientists who did these implementations only
                do "Toy" file transfers, and often use "Toy" operating
                systems.
                There has been some complaints from the Toy systems
                crowd recently that FTP is too complicated.  Well, it
                may be too complicated for Toy systems, but in fact it
                is too simple for many Real file systems.  For
                example, it has no way to encode a "library" (i.e., a
                named collection of subfiles).  It is (barely)
                adequate for shipping around files of text, but not
                much more.
                With the notable exception of Multics and UNIX, many
                operating systems support complex file structures of
                which the user must be aware.  One is not doing the
                user a favor by hiding details that may reach out and
                bite him.  That is the reason some FTPs put out a
                large informative message at the beginning of the
                transfer, specifying the file baroqueness that is
                involved.  As a Computer Scientist, you may find that
                message annoying, but if you had to use MVS very much,
                you would find it helpful, informative, and maybe even
                reassuring.  Some believe that as DARPA technology
                moves into the production environment of DDN, there
                will be user requirements for such informative
                messages for a variety of vendor operating systems.
             To provide important information to the user the
             specification should either allow multiple 1xx messages,
             or restore the old spontaneous reply category.  In fact,
             the latter is preferable; this information should be
             displayed to the user, but a user FTP might swallow 1xx
             messages without displaying their text.
          The Answer:
             Following the Robustness Principle (a protocol
             implementation ought to inflict minimal pain and accept
             maximal pain) there should be only one 1xx response.
             That is, those FTP servers that now issue two 1xx
             responses should combine them.

Reynolds & Postel [Page 19]

Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 944

    OTHER REFERENCES:
       RFC 678 - Document File Format Standards
       MIL-STD-1780 - File Transfer Protocol
    DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
    CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF.ARPA
 Trivial File Transfer Protocol  ------------------------------ (TFTP)
    STATUS:  Elective
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 783 (in IPTW)
    COMMENTS:
       A very simple file moving protocol, no access control is
       provided.
       This is in use in several local networks.
       Ambiguities in the interpretation of several of the transfer
       modes should be  clarified, and additional transfer modes could
       be defined.  Additional error codes could be defined to more
       clearly identify problems.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    DEPENDENCIES: User Datagram Protocol
    CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF.ARPA
 Simple File Transfer Protocol  ------------------------------- (SFTP)
    STATUS:  Experimental
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 913
    COMMENTS:
       SFTP is a simple file transfer protocol.  It fills the need of
       people wanting a protocol that is more useful than TFTP but
       easier to implement (and less powerful) than FTP.  SFTP
       supports user access control, file transfers, directory
       listing, directory changing, file renaming and deleting.
       SFTP can be implemented with any reliable 8-bit byte stream

Reynolds & Postel [Page 20]

Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 944

       oriented protocol, this document describes its TCP
       specification.  SFTP uses only one TCP connection; whereas TFTP
       implements a connection over UDP, and FTP uses two TCP
       connections (one using the TELNET protocol).
       Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this
       protocol with the contact.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
    CONTACT: MKL@MIT-XX.ARPA
 Simple Mail Transfer Protocol  ------------------------------- (SMTP)
    STATUS:  Recommended
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 821 (in "Internet Mail Protocols")
    COMMENTS:
       The procedure for transmitting computer mail between hosts.
       This has been revised since the IPTW, it is in the "Internet
       Mail Protocols" volume of November 1982.  RFC 788 (in IPTW) is
       obsolete.
       There have been many misunderstandings and errors in the early
       implementations.  Some documentation of these problems can be
       found in the file [ISIF]<SMTP>MAIL.ERRORS.
       Some minor differences between RFC 821 and RFC 822 should be
       resolved.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
       RFC 822 - Mail Header Format Standards
          This has been revised since the IPTW, it is in the "Internet
          Mail Protocols" volume of November 1982.  RFC 733 (in IPTW)
          is obsolete.  Further revision of RFC 822 is needed to
          correct some minor errors in the details of the
          specification.
       MIL-STD-1781 - Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP)
    DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol

Reynolds & Postel [Page 21]

Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 944

    CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF.ARPA
 Resource Location Protocol  ----------------------------------- (RLP)
    STATUS:   Elective
    SPECIFICATION:   RFC 887
    COMMENTS:
       A resource location protocol for use in the ARPA-Internet.
       This protocol utilizes the User Datagram Protocol (UDP) which
       in turn calls on the Internet Protocol to deliver its
       datagrams.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    DEPENDENCIES: User Datagram Protocol
    CONTACT:   Accetta@CMU-CS-A.ARPA
 Loader Debugger Protocol  ------------------------------------- (LDP)
    STATUS:  Experimental
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 909
    COMMENTS:
       Specifies a protocol for loading, dumping and debugging target
       machines from hosts in a network environment.  It is also
       designed to accommodate a variety of target CPU types.  It
       provides a powerful set of debugging services, while at the
       same time, it is structured so that a simple subset may be
       implemented in applications like boot loading where efficiency
       and space are at a premium.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    DEPENDENCIES:  Reliable Data Protocol
    CONTACT:  Hinden@BBN-UNIX.ARPA

Reynolds & Postel [Page 22]

Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 944

 Remote Job Entry  --------------------------------------------- (RJE)
    STATUS:  Elective
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 407 (in APH)
    COMMENTS:
       The general protocol for submitting batch jobs and retrieving
       the results.
       Some changes needed for use with TCP.
       No known active implementations.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    DEPENDENCIES: File Transfer Protocol
                  Transmission Control Protocol
    CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF.ARPA
 Remote Job Service  ---------------------------------------- (NETRJS)
    STATUS:  Elective
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 740 (in APH)
    COMMENTS:
       A special protocol for submitting batch jobs and retrieving the
       results used with the UCLA IBM OS system.
       Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this
       protocol with the contact.
       Revision in progress.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
    CONTACT: Braden@UCLA-CCN.ARPA

Reynolds & Postel [Page 23]

Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 944

 Remote Telnet Service  ------------------------------------ (RTELNET)
    STATUS:  Elective
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 818
    COMMENTS:
       Provides special access to user Telnet on a remote system.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    DEPENDENCIES: Telnet, Transmission Control Protocol
    CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF.ARPA
 Graphics Protocol  --------------------------------------- (GRAPHICS)
    STATUS:  Elective
    SPECIFICATION:  NIC 24308 (in APH)
    COMMENTS:
       The protocol for vector graphics.
       Very minor changes needed for use with TCP.
       No known active implementations.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    DEPENDENCIES: Telnet, Transmission Control Protocol
    CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF.ARPA

Reynolds & Postel [Page 24]

Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 944

 Echo Protocol  ----------------------------------------------- (ECHO)
    STATUS:  Recommended
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 862
    COMMENTS:
       Debugging protocol, sends back whatever you send it.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
                  or User Datagram Protocol
    CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF.ARPA
 Discard Protocol  ----------------------------------------- (DISCARD)
    STATUS:  Elective
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 863
    COMMENTS:
       Debugging protocol, throws away whatever you send it.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
                  or User Datagram Protocol
    CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF.ARPA
 Character Generator Protocol  ----------------------------- (CHARGEN)
    STATUS:  Elective
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 864
    COMMENTS:
       Debugging protocol, sends you ASCII data.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
                  or User Datagram Protocol

Reynolds & Postel [Page 25]

Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 944

    CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF.ARPA
 Quote of the Day Protocol  ---------------------------------- (QUOTE)
    STATUS:  Elective
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 865
    COMMENTS:
       Debugging protocol, sends you a short ASCII message.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
                  or User Datagram Protocol
    CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF.ARPA
 Active Users Protocol  -------------------------------------- (USERS)
    STATUS:  Elective
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 866
    COMMENTS:
       Lists the currently active users.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
                  or User Datagram Protocol
    CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF.ARPA
 Finger Protocol  ------------------------------------------- (FINGER)
    STATUS:  Elective
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 742 (in APH)
    COMMENTS:
       Provides information on the current or most recent activity of
       a user.
       Some extensions have been suggested.

Reynolds & Postel [Page 26]

Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 944

       Some changes are are needed for TCP.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
    CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF.ARPA
 WhoIs Protocol  ------------------------------------------- (NICNAME)
    STATUS:  Elective
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 812 (in IPTW)
    COMMENTS:
       Accesses the ARPANET Directory database.  Provides a way to
       find out about people, their addresses, phone numbers,
       organizations, and mailboxes.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
    CONTACT: Feinler@SRI-NIC.ARPA
 Domain Name Protocol  -------------------------------------- (DOMAIN)
    STATUS:  Experimental
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 881, 882, 883
    COMMENTS:
    OTHER REFERENCES:
       RFC 920 - Domain Requirements
       RFC 921 - Domain Name Implementation Schedule - Revised
    DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
                  or User Datagram Protocol
    CONTACT: Mockapetris@USC-ISIF.ARPA

Reynolds & Postel [Page 27]

Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 944

 HOSTNAME Protocol  --------------------------------------- (HOSTNAME)
    STATUS:  Elective
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 811 (in IPTW)
    COMMENTS:
       Accesses the Registered Internet Hosts database (HOSTS.TXT).
       Provides a way to find out about a host in the Internet, its
       Internet Address, and the protocols it implements.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
       RFC 810 - Host Table Specification
    DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
    CONTACT: Feinler@SRI-NIC.ARPA
 Host Name Server Protocol  ----------------------------- (NAMESERVER)
    STATUS:  Experimental
    SPECIFICATION:  IEN 116 (in IPTW)
    COMMENTS:
       Provides machine oriented procedure for translating a host name
       to an Internet Address.
       This specification has significant problems:  1) The name
       syntax is out of date.  2) The protocol details are ambiguous,
       in particular, the length octet either does or doesn't include
       itself and the op code.  3) The extensions are not supported by
       any known implementation.
       This protocol is now abandon in favor of the DOMAIN protocol.
       Further implementations of this protocol are not advised.
       Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this
       protocol with the contact.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    DEPENDENCIES: User Datagram Protocol
    CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF.ARPA

Reynolds & Postel [Page 28]

Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 944

 CSNET Mailbox Name Server Protocol  ---------------------- (CSNET-NS)
    STATUS:  Experimental
    SPECIFICATION:  CS-DN-2
    COMMENTS:
       Provides access to the CSNET data base of users to give
       information about users names, affiliations, and mailboxes.
       Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this
       protocol with the contact.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
    CONTACT: Solomon@UWISC.ARPA
 Daytime Protocol  ----------------------------------------- (DAYTIME)
    STATUS:  Elective
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 867
    COMMENTS:
       Provides the day and time in ASCII character string.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
                  or User Datagram Protocol
    CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF.ARPA
 Time Server Protocol  ---------------------------------------- (TIME)
    STATUS:  Elective
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 868
    COMMENTS:
       Provides the time as the number of seconds from a specified
       reference time.
    OTHER REFERENCES:

Reynolds & Postel [Page 29]

Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 944

    DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
                  or User Datagram Protocol
    CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF.ARPA
 DCNET Time Server Protocol  --------------------------------- (CLOCK)
    STATUS:  Elective
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 778
    COMMENTS:
       Provides a mechanism for keeping synchronized clocks.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    DEPENDENCIES: Internet Control Message Protocol
    CONTACT: Mills@USC-ISID.ARPA
 SUPDUP Protocol  ------------------------------------------- (SUPDUP)
    STATUS:  Elective
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 734 (in APH)
    COMMENTS:
       A special Telnet like protocol for display terminals.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
    CONTACT: Crispin@SU-SCORE.ARPA

Reynolds & Postel [Page 30]

Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 944

 Internet Message Protocol  ------------------------------------ (MPM)
    STATUS:  Experimental
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 759
    COMMENTS:
       This is an experimental multimedia mail transfer protocol.  The
       implementation is called a Message Processing Module or MPM.
       Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this
       protocol with the contact.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
       RFC 767 - Structured Document Formats
    DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
    CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF.ARPA
 Post Office Protocol - Version 2  ---------------------------- (POP2)
    STATUS:  Experimental
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 937
    COMMENTS:
       The intent of the Post Office Protocol - Version 2 (POP2) is to
       allow a user's workstation to access mail from a mailbox
       server.  It is expected that mail will be posted from the
       workstation to the mailbox server via the Simple Mail Transfer
       Protocol (SMTP).
       Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this
       protocol with the contact.
    OTHER REFERENCES:  Obsoletes RFC 918
    DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
    CONTACT: JKReynolds@USC-ISIF.ARPA

Reynolds & Postel [Page 31]

Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 944

 Network Standard Text Editor  ------------------------------- (NETED)
    STATUS:  Elective
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 569
    COMMENTS:
       Describes a simple line editor which could be provided by every
       Internet host.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    DEPENDENCIES:
    CONTACT:  Postel@USC-ISIF.ARPA
 Authentication Service  -------------------------------------- (AUTH)
    STATUS:  Experimental
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 931
    COMMENTS:
       This server provides a means to determine the identity of a
       user of a particular TCP connection.  Given a TCP port number
       pair, it returns a character string which identifies the owner
       of that connection on the server's system.
       Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this
       protocol with the contact.
    OTHER REFERENCES:  Supercedes RFC 912
    DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
    CONTACT: StJohns@MIT-Multics.ARPA

Reynolds & Postel [Page 32]

Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 944

APPENDICES

 Assigned Numbers  ---------------------------------------------------
    STATUS:  None
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 943
    COMMENTS:
       Describes the fields of various protocols that are assigned
       specific values for actual use, and lists the currently
       assigned values.
       Issued April 1985, replaces RFC 923, RFC 790 in IPTW, and
       RFC 900.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    CONTACT: JKReynolds@USC-ISIF.ARPA
 Pre-emption  --------------------------------------------------------
    STATUS:  Elective
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 794 (in IPTW)
    COMMENTS:
       Describes how to do pre-emption of TCP connections.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF.ARPA

Reynolds & Postel [Page 33]

Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 944

 Service Mappings  ---------------------------------------------------
    STATUS:  None
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 795 (in IPTW)
    COMMENTS:
       Describes the mapping of the IP type of service field onto the
       parameters of some specific networks.
       Out of date, needs revision.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF.ARPA
 Address Mappings  ---------------------------------------------------
    STATUS:  None
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 796 (in IPTW)
    COMMENTS:
       Describes the mapping between Internet Addresses and the
       addresses of some specific networks.
       Out of date, needs revision.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    CONTACT:  Postel@USC-ISIF.ARPA
 Document Formats  ---------------------------------------------------
    STATUS:  None
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 678
    COMMENTS:
       Describes standard format rules for several types of documents.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    CONTACT:  Postel@USC-ISIF.ARPA

Reynolds & Postel [Page 34]

Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 944

 Bitmap Formats  -----------------------------------------------------
    STATUS:  None
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 797
    COMMENTS:
       Describes a standard format for bitmap data.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    CONTACT:  Postel@USC-ISIF.ARPA
 Facsimile Formats  --------------------------------------------------
    STATUS:  None
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 804
    COMMENTS:
       Describes a standard format for facsimile data.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    CONTACT:  Postel@USC-ISIF.ARPA
 Host-Front End Protocol  ------------------------------------- (HFEP)
    STATUS:  Experimental
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 929
    COMMENTS:
       Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this
       protocol with the contact.
    OTHER REFERENCES:  RFC 928
    DEPENDENCIES:
    CONTACT: Padlipsky@USC-ISI.ARPA

Reynolds & Postel [Page 35]

Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 944

 Internet Protocol on X.25 Networks  ------------------------ (IP-X25)
    STATUS:  Recommended
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 877
    COMMENTS:
       Describes a standard for the transmission of IP Datagrams over
       Public Data Networks.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    CONTACT:  jtk@PURDUE.ARPA
 Internet Protocol on DC Networks  --------------------------- (IP-DC)
    STATUS:  Elective
    SPECIFICATION: RFC 891
    COMMENTS:
    OTHER REFERENCES:
       RFC 778 - DCNET Internet Clock Service
    CONTACT:  Mills@USC-ISID.ARPA
 Internet Protocol on Ethernet Networks  ---------------------- (IP-E)
    STATUS:  Recommended
    SPECIFICATION: RFC 894
    COMMENTS:
    OTHER REFERENCES:  RFC 893
    CONTACT:  Postel@USC-ISIF.ARPA

Reynolds & Postel [Page 36]

Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 944

 Internet Protocol on Experimental Ethernet Networks  -------- (IP-EE)
    STATUS:  Recommended
    SPECIFICATION: RFC 895
    COMMENTS:
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    CONTACT:  Postel@USC-ISIF.ARPA
 Internet Subnets Protocol  --------------------------------- (IP-SUB)
    STATUS:  Experimental
    SPECIFICATION: RFC 940
    COMMENTS:
       Discussion of the various problems and potential solutions of
       "explicit subnets" in a multi-LAN environment.
       Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this
       protocol with the contact.
    OTHER REFERENCES:  RFC 917, RFC 925, RFC 932, RFC 936, RFC 922
    DEPENDENCIES:
    CONTACT:  Mills@USC-ISID.ARPA
 Broadcasting Internet Datagrams  ------------------------- (IP-BROAD)
    STATUS:  Experimental
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 919
    COMMENTS:
       A proposed protocol of simple rules for broadcasting Internet
       datagrams on local networks that support broadcast, for
       addressing broadcasts, and for how gateways should handle them.
       Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this
       protocol with the contact.
    OTHER REFERENCES:  RFC 922

Reynolds & Postel [Page 37]

Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 944

    DEPENDENCIES:
    CONTACT: Mogul@SU-SCORE.ARPA
 Address Resolution Protocol  ---------------------------------- (ARP)
    STATUS:  Recommended
    SPECIFICATION: RFC 826
    COMMENTS:
       This is a procedure for finding the network hardware address
       corresponding to an Internet Address.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    CONTACT:  Postel@USC-ISIF.ARPA
 A Reverse Address Resolution Protocol  ----------------------- (RARP)
    STATUS:  Elective
    SPECIFICATION: RFC 903
    COMMENTS:
       This is a procedure for workstations to dynamically find their
       protocol address (e.g., their Internet Address), when they only
       only know their hardware address (e.g., their attached physical
       network address).
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    CONTACT:  Mogul@SU-SCORE.ARPA
 Multi-LAN Address Resolution Protocol  ----------------------- (MARP)
    STATUS:  Experimental
    SPECIFICATION: RFC 925
    COMMENTS:
       Discussion of the various problems and potential solutions of
       "transparent subnets" in a multi-LAN environment.
       Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this
       protocol with the contact.

Reynolds & Postel [Page 38]

Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 944

    OTHER REFERENCES:  RFC 917, RFC 826
    DEPENDENCIES:
    CONTACT:  Postel@USC-ISIF.ARPA
 Broadcasting Internet Datagrams with Subnets --------- (IP-SUB-BROAD)
    STATUS:  Experimental
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 922
    COMMENTS:
       A proposed protocol of simple rules for broadcasting Internet
       datagrams on local networks that support broadcast, for
       addressing broadcasts, and for how gateways should handle them.
       Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this
       protocol with the contact.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    DEPENDENCIES:
    CONTACT: Mogul@SU-SCORE.ARPA
 Host Access Protocol  ----------------------------------------- (HAP)
    STATUS:  Recommended
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 907
    COMMENTS:
       This protocol specifies the network-access level communication
       between an arbitrary computer, called a host, and a
       packet-switched satellite network, e.g., SATNET or WBNET.
       Note:  Implementations of HAP should be performed in
       coordination with satellite network development and operations
       personnel.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    DEPENDENCIES:
    CONTACT: Schoen@BBN-UNIX.ARPA

Reynolds & Postel [Page 39]

Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 944

 Reliable Asynchronous Transfer Protocol  --------------------- (RATP)
    STATUS:  Experimental
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 916
    COMMENTS:
       This paper specifies a protocol which allows two programs to
       reliably communicate over a communication link.  It ensures
       that the data entering one end of the link if received arrives
       at the other end intact and unaltered.  This proposed protocol
       is designed to operate over a full duplex point-to-point
       connection.  It contains some features which tailor it to the
       RS-232 links now in current use.
       Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this
       protocol with the contact.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
    CONTACT: Finn@USC-ISIF.ARPA
 Thinwire Protocol  --------------------------------------- (THINWIRE)
    STATUS:  Experimental
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 914
    COMMENTS:
       This paper discusses a Thinwire Protocol for connecting
       personal computers to the ARPA-Internet.  It primarily focuses
       on the particular problems in the ARPA-Internet of low speed
       network interconnection with personal computers, and possible
       methods of solution.
       Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this
       protocol with the contact.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    DEPENDENCIES:
    CONTACT: Farber@ROCHESTER.ARPA

Reynolds & Postel [Page 40]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc944.txt · Last modified: 1992/09/23 19:45 by 127.0.0.1

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki